Hell, Windows Mobile is crap from a "business person's perspective." I'm a Business Analyst who spends most of his days developing requirements for business apps--and think that Windows Mobile is absolutely abysmal. My technical acumen is, ostensibly, above average--but there are times where I'd wish something would simply work. I no longer want to spend entire weekends wrenching on a gizmo.
In keeping with the spirit of this thread, I'll even use Bullet Points for a theoretical missive to Microsoft...
--Congrats, Microsoft: you've actually done something with the UI beyond changing the color of the default theme! I remember my first Windows Mobile device: an HP PDA running PocketPC (or whatever he hell it was called) around 2002--and the WinMo phone I use now basically works the same. I think it's pretty pathetic that it took you this long to even get to this point--and the UI is still developmentally challenged. I'm sick of a UI is like playing a game of Operation.
--I'm tired of rebooting my phone every three days. Failing to do so means that it will start running very slowly at some critical moment (you know, like answering a phone call). I should note that the only non-MS app on my phone is Google Maps.
--Especially embarassing are the sheer amounts of money and resources that you could have sunk into this--and haven't. I really like the work publicized by the folks at Microsoft R maybe the WinMo team will try using it someday...
How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform?
Please tell me the submitter isn't a rabid conspiracy theorist. While I have discomfort with this bill (and would be open to seeing it die a death in conference), jumping to conclusions like this smacks of fearmongering.
The President possesses broad powers now, and for the most part, doesn't roll out of bed in the morning and subsequently use them because he gets a hangnail.
Well, you bring up some good questions, the answers to which I do not know. However, given Warren's past history of being exceedingly fastidious when it comes to numbers (and quite good at it), along with this article from a professor at Wharton (arguably, the top MBA program in the US), I would say that there is some merit to this claim: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
News alert... The wealthy in the US already pay a lot of income taxes as the system is highly progressive. [snip] 39% of the...total personal income taxes came from top 1%
While you are likely technically correct, there's a nuance that needs to stated: Warren Buffett noted that there are significant inequities in this so-called "progressive" tax system: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
For those who do not RTFA, Warren notes that it's essentially ridiculous that he pays more as a percentage of his wealth than his secretary (who makes about $60K/year) and who has substantially less disposable income. Roughly summarized, Warren has essentially noted "tax the rich--it's OK, we'll figure out a way to make more."
Ok, now take into account how much people with landlines are spending to call you.
Good point: isn't the majority of Western/Central Europe (most of which is part of the EU) on a "caller pays" model, that is, one (essentially) doesn't pay to receive calls or SMS?
I am of course tlkaing about science based medicine, Natural path, homeopaths, acupuncturist and others of there ilk are a different matter.
I can't speak for either naturopathy or homeopathy, but to lump all acupuncturists into failing to practice medicine with an empirical basis is just nebulous.
My father went to the UCLA Center for East-West Medicine (which works closely with UCLA Medical School) to study acupuncture: http://www.cewm.med.ucla.edu/
He credits part of his very successful career in acupuncture (which included a lot of collaboration with MDs to treat chronic illnesses) to having participated in this program.
There are acupuncturists (and medical doctors, for that matter) who fail to center their decisions around evidence-based medicine. That noted, to declare that "all doctors" from a certain discipline as being of no value is hardly a scientific way to approach it.
It seems as if Khamenei has stepped into a big steaming pile of Streisand Effect.
Not only do you have disenfranchised Iranian voters motivated to get the word out, you've got tons of people around the world looking even MORE closely because of clampdowns on media.
Nothing--especially in news--is more tantalizing than that which someone tries to keep "secret" or "covered up" because it's illicit (at least as far as the current Ayatollah is concerned). Unless the Iranian government is willing to whack their entire telecommunications system, word WILL get out--and people will value, read and remember it because it's supposed to be a "secret."
Regardless of the outcome (and for the sake of the Iranian people, I hope it's a good one), I think we're watching what happens when suppressive ideology meets 21st century technology.
Is it possible that your assumption that Americans are generally not tolerant of spicy food is based on an unreasonably small sample size? Keep in mind that the US has over 305 million people.
During a visit to Prague in 2004, I recall some well-meaning individuals saying "you Americans like/believe/do X." I pointed out that the US and EU (at the time) were roughly similar in population, and that I knew better than to say "you Europeans..." I was well-travelled enough to know that the EU member states had non-trivial cultural differences.
The US is amazingly diverse: even the Pacific Northwest "region" has substantial differences in general culture (Portland vs. Seattle) and that hardly takes into account the amalgam of cultures within those individual cities.
Are you suggesting that a newspaper that charges money tends to cater to people who tend to vote Republican, and a newspaper that doesn't charge money tends to cater to people who tend to vote Democrat? It think it depends. Two of my favorite papers (Christian Science Monitor and the Financial Times) tend to be more centrist or slightly left leaning, respectively.
Both periodicals have higher-than-average subscription costs, have substantially less advertising, and were also recommended to me by experienced journalists who could be termed "raving liberals," even by Portland, Oregon standards.
The costs are higher, perhaps, because they rely primarily on their news bureaus distributed internationally (and largely avoid use of AP or Reuters). My leftist acquaintances also noted that this was a key factor in why their journalism was higher in quality and depth.
The Financial Times, as one of my friends put it, was particularly good because wealthy people shelling out $$$ for this paper were paying to read a fairly blunt and accurate perspective. Their editorials were highly critical of McCain and very supportive of Obama.
I will be paying to receive both of these periodicals very soon: I've discovered that when it comes to news, free is frequently NOT a good price. It is still extremely difficult to beat the work of a reputable, astute, thoughtful journalist.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
The company is responsible for making sure that nobody gets "overzealous", and is culpable when somebody does.
I second that! Additionally, the impact that sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor can have on the bottom-lines of restaurants cannot be underestimated.
I dare anyone to challenge my assertion any manipulation of reviews by user-review-driven sites is FRAUD and FALSE ADVERTISING. These sites need to firmly establish corporate policies that all content must be clearly marked as either unencumbered publicly-submitted reviews or as paid placement/advertising/etc.
It's not unheard of for a travel/leisure reviewer to be biased (book: "Do Travel Writers Go To Hell?"). That said, those of us who are avid travelers and foodies KNOW this--and take steps to gather data from sources that are more reputable. The fact that Yelp, TripAdvisor and other sites may not be clear about how they police and protect this content is disappointing.
Unfortunately, the cities are not marked, so I can't tell if those yellow spots cover my city or not. Not so hard to figure out what to do next: http://tinyurl.com/afjvct
You can already buy eee PC 900A laptops for $200 at BestBuy. Those suckers have 9 inch screens, Atom processors, and a gig of RAM. So who needs this OLPC stuff?
I think Negroponte said it best:
In the case of netbooks, he says, "You could arguably say we really created the netbook market. But if you look at the netbooks, they really copied the easy part. They didn't copy low power, they didn't copy mesh networks, they didn't copy sunlight-readable displays. All three things are absent from every single netbook."
I've personally used an OLPC before. While I'm not ready to buy one, I'm impressed with just how fine the design and build quality is for its intended purpose.
Seems like Slashdotters get regularly stuck in a mindset of "geez, it wouldn't work for me, therefore it must be crap." There are several billion other people on this planet, a sizeable number of whom might like it just fine.
The converse (especially in light of what others have already said) is also true: why should my file transfers need to suffer because of your gaming or surfing?
Among other topics, it goes into some of the history of how a natural part of life has been usurped by MDs who think they know better than human nature and how it is now essentially being sold as an illness that needs "fixing". Personally, I think $5k for a uneventful birth is a fleecing upon society.
Hate to break this to you, but we've given up many "natural" ways of doing things. Not all that long ago, births were attended to by amateur midwives, pain was managed with strange concoctions (mostly booze), and antibiotics not terribly common. Are you going to tell me that not a single dose of Advil (even post-partum) nor any antibiotics were employed during this entire event? And believe me, you want those "crazy modern" advances in sterile technology.
As someone who is working toward a full-time career in healthcare, I must tell you that this "human nature" you speak of is both wonderous and full of pitfalls.
I want to discuss some of the things you mentioned above. That noted, I'm not going to go on my experience (wanting to avoid the foolish thinking that "what's good/true for me must be the same for everyone else"), but actually go on the experiences of thousands of patients. In the modern age, we call this CLINICAL RESEARCH:
* Episiotomy: Not sure what to say about this, but it may help "girl" issues in the next topic.
* C-Section: Frequently called the most "unnatural" of birth techniques, it does offer a few advantages, including helping avert a situation where a high risk birth exposes a fetus to hypoxia (and brain damage) from extended periods in the birth canal. Another advantage that the "natural" crowd seemingly fails to note: there's a not-insignificant risk that vaginal birth may cause some PERMANENT degree of incontinence and substantial damage to enjoyable sex due to nerve-damage.
* Drugs: Again, administered right, this is a red herring and promotes a superb experience for everyone involved (especially the woman). For every person that MIGHT have had a bad experience with anesthesia, you're going to talk to 10-20 people that thad a very positive experience with it.
* Circumcision: I agree that this is probably something that can go. We probably do it more here in the US because we've got this chronic puritanism that discourages conversation about our naughty bits, something that's necessary to discuss CLEANLINESS issues pertaining to the PENIS. (There, I said it.)
Many OB/GYNs are outright LEAVING practice because malpractice insurance is becoming so expensive. Why? Because parents frequently WANT SOMEONE TO BLAME when something goes wrong. I have a bad feeling that this is the same mindset to causes people to strongly correlate autism with vaccinations, a notion that has specious--at best--evidence. In any event, just look at the number of doctors graduating from medical school wanting to be OBs. Hmm.
I'm a big fan of complementary and alternative medicine: my father practiced acupuncture and chiropractic. He had a solid track record of clinical outcomes (he frequently received referrals from MDs because of this), his prices were quite reasonable and he held himself to very high levels of ethical behavior.
He also, notably, knew when to call a spade a spade: he didn't turn his nose up at MDs and was an avid reader of many, many medical and surgical journals. It certainly didn't hurt that he fondly recounts his experiences at UCLA's Center for East-West Medicine. Seemed like they were quite successful at shelving the egotistical and frequently stupid acrimony that healthcare professonals (mainstream or alternative) engage in to focus on one thing: delivering cost-effective patient care that we can continuously improve on.
Perhaps that's true for still, but the dynamic range of the Red One in the dark has apparently been comparable (or even slightly better than) film.
Film can do things digital can't, but most certainly, digital can do things film will simply never do, including in the arena of cost and camera handling. The Red One delivers an experience that rivals film at a fraction of the cost and a whole lot less weight!
There's no way a project I worked on earlier this year would ever have been possible if it wasn't for the Red One.
Indeed -- I also shot a small film project with the Red One. All things considered, it's a user-friendly package (as far as professional-level cameras are concerned) with superb performance and a virtually unbeatable price.
Ostensibly, as of last year, the only competitor to the Red One camera (package cost: around $50K) was an offering from Sony (cost: around $200K).
When Soderbergh said that this camera was going to "revolutionize independent film," he wasn't joking.
The attitude that users who do something wrong are idiots is a large part of why computers, operating systems and applications are generally pretty shit.
I enthusiastically agree. Over the last few years, I've had the "pleasure" of working with applications specific to healthcare and insurance industries. Overall, they're definitely shit.
I have to give Apple some credit here: activities requiring kernel access (or, for that matter, most anything that has a substantial potential for causing a security breach) are preceeded by a very friendly, clear message AND a requirement to enter a password before continuing.
The advantages here are clear: 1) The user actually gets honest-to-god informed about the effects of something they might agree to next and 2) Is slowed down (briefly) to ponder their action as they type in their password.
We can blame the user all we want, but anyone cognizant of human factors and ergonomic design knows that this is a paltry response...
Slashdot Mirror
The dark side? They're NIHILISTS!
Hell, Windows Mobile is crap from a "business person's perspective." I'm a Business Analyst who spends most of his days developing requirements for business apps--and think that Windows Mobile is absolutely abysmal. My technical acumen is, ostensibly, above average--but there are times where I'd wish something would simply work. I no longer want to spend entire weekends wrenching on a gizmo.
In keeping with the spirit of this thread, I'll even use Bullet Points for a theoretical missive to Microsoft...
--Congrats, Microsoft: you've actually done something with the UI beyond changing the color of the default theme! I remember my first Windows Mobile device: an HP PDA running PocketPC (or whatever he hell it was called) around 2002--and the WinMo phone I use now basically works the same. I think it's pretty pathetic that it took you this long to even get to this point--and the UI is still developmentally challenged. I'm sick of a UI is like playing a game of Operation.
--I'm tired of rebooting my phone every three days. Failing to do so means that it will start running very slowly at some critical moment (you know, like answering a phone call). I should note that the only non-MS app on my phone is Google Maps.
--Especially embarassing are the sheer amounts of money and resources that you could have sunk into this--and haven't. I really like the work publicized by the folks at Microsoft R maybe the WinMo team will try using it someday...
How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform?
Please tell me the submitter isn't a rabid conspiracy theorist. While I have discomfort with this bill (and would be open to seeing it die a death in conference), jumping to conclusions like this smacks of fearmongering.
The President possesses broad powers now, and for the most part, doesn't roll out of bed in the morning and subsequently use them because he gets a hangnail.
Many Europeans find it bizarre that you would be charged because someone decided to text you!
I can certainly see where they're coming from here.
Well, you bring up some good questions, the answers to which I do not know. However, given Warren's past history of being exceedingly fastidious when it comes to numbers (and quite good at it), along with this article from a professor at Wharton (arguably, the top MBA program in the US), I would say that there is some merit to this claim:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
News alert... The wealthy in the US already pay a lot of income taxes as the system is highly progressive. [snip] 39% of the ...total personal income taxes came from top 1%
While you are likely technically correct, there's a nuance that needs to stated: Warren Buffett noted that there are significant inequities in this so-called "progressive" tax system:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
For those who do not RTFA, Warren notes that it's essentially ridiculous that he pays more as a percentage of his wealth than his secretary (who makes about $60K/year) and who has substantially less disposable income. Roughly summarized, Warren has essentially noted "tax the rich--it's OK, we'll figure out a way to make more."
Ok, now take into account how much people with landlines are spending to call you.
Good point: isn't the majority of Western/Central Europe (most of which is part of the EU) on a "caller pays" model, that is, one (essentially) doesn't pay to receive calls or SMS?
I am of course tlkaing about science based medicine, Natural path, homeopaths, acupuncturist and others of there ilk are a different matter.
I can't speak for either naturopathy or homeopathy, but to lump all acupuncturists into failing to practice medicine with an empirical basis is just nebulous.
My father went to the UCLA Center for East-West Medicine (which works closely with UCLA Medical School) to study acupuncture:
http://www.cewm.med.ucla.edu/
He credits part of his very successful career in acupuncture (which included a lot of collaboration with MDs to treat chronic illnesses) to having participated in this program.
There are acupuncturists (and medical doctors, for that matter) who fail to center their decisions around evidence-based medicine. That noted, to declare that "all doctors" from a certain discipline as being of no value is hardly a scientific way to approach it.
AMEN. The agenda also provides one last chance for the meeting organizer to ask "am I really inviting people that really need to be at this meeting?"
How many times was a meeting chock-full of people who weren't either KEY contributors, decision-makers, etc.?
It seems as if Khamenei has stepped into a big steaming pile of Streisand Effect.
Not only do you have disenfranchised Iranian voters motivated to get the word out, you've got tons of people around the world looking even MORE closely because of clampdowns on media.
Nothing--especially in news--is more tantalizing than that which someone tries to keep "secret" or "covered up" because it's illicit (at least as far as the current Ayatollah is concerned). Unless the Iranian government is willing to whack their entire telecommunications system, word WILL get out--and people will value, read and remember it because it's supposed to be a "secret."
Regardless of the outcome (and for the sake of the Iranian people, I hope it's a good one), I think we're watching what happens when suppressive ideology meets 21st century technology.
Is it possible that your assumption that Americans are generally not tolerant of spicy food is based on an unreasonably small sample size? Keep in mind that the US has over 305 million people.
During a visit to Prague in 2004, I recall some well-meaning individuals saying "you Americans like/believe/do X." I pointed out that the US and EU (at the time) were roughly similar in population, and that I knew better than to say "you Europeans..." I was well-travelled enough to know that the EU member states had non-trivial cultural differences.
The US is amazingly diverse: even the Pacific Northwest "region" has substantial differences in general culture (Portland vs. Seattle) and that hardly takes into account the amalgam of cultures within those individual cities.
"A Very Merry Unauthorized Higgs-Boson Particle"?
Are you suggesting that a newspaper that charges money tends to cater to people who tend to vote Republican, and a newspaper that doesn't charge money tends to cater to people who tend to vote Democrat?
It think it depends. Two of my favorite papers (Christian Science Monitor and the Financial Times) tend to be more centrist or slightly left leaning, respectively.
Both periodicals have higher-than-average subscription costs, have substantially less advertising, and were also recommended to me by experienced journalists who could be termed "raving liberals," even by Portland, Oregon standards.
The costs are higher, perhaps, because they rely primarily on their news bureaus distributed internationally (and largely avoid use of AP or Reuters). My leftist acquaintances also noted that this was a key factor in why their journalism was higher in quality and depth.
The Financial Times, as one of my friends put it, was particularly good because wealthy people shelling out $$$ for this paper were paying to read a fairly blunt and accurate perspective. Their editorials were highly critical of McCain and very supportive of Obama.
I will be paying to receive both of these periodicals very soon: I've discovered that when it comes to news, free is frequently NOT a good price. It is still extremely difficult to beat the work of a reputable, astute, thoughtful journalist.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
The company is responsible for making sure that nobody gets "overzealous", and is culpable when somebody does.
I second that! Additionally, the impact that sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor can have on the bottom-lines of restaurants cannot be underestimated.
I dare anyone to challenge my assertion any manipulation of reviews by user-review-driven sites is FRAUD and FALSE ADVERTISING. These sites need to firmly establish corporate policies that all content must be clearly marked as either unencumbered publicly-submitted reviews or as paid placement/advertising/etc.
It's not unheard of for a travel/leisure reviewer to be biased (book: "Do Travel Writers Go To Hell?"). That said, those of us who are avid travelers and foodies KNOW this--and take steps to gather data from sources that are more reputable. The fact that Yelp, TripAdvisor and other sites may not be clear about how they police and protect this content is disappointing.
I second "A Beautiful Mind" (book) -- absolutely amazing story.
Unfortunately, the cities are not marked, so I can't tell if those yellow spots cover my city or not.
Not so hard to figure out what to do next: http://tinyurl.com/afjvct
You can already buy eee PC 900A laptops for $200 at BestBuy. Those suckers have 9 inch screens, Atom processors, and a gig of RAM. So who needs this OLPC stuff?
I think Negroponte said it best:
In the case of netbooks, he says, "You could arguably say we really created the netbook market. But if you look at the netbooks, they really copied the easy part. They didn't copy low power, they didn't copy mesh networks, they didn't copy sunlight-readable displays. All three things are absent from every single netbook."
I've personally used an OLPC before. While I'm not ready to buy one, I'm impressed with just how fine the design and build quality is for its intended purpose.
Seems like Slashdotters get regularly stuck in a mindset of "geez, it wouldn't work for me, therefore it must be crap." There are several billion other people on this planet, a sizeable number of whom might like it just fine.
The converse (especially in light of what others have already said) is also true: why should my file transfers need to suffer because of your gaming or surfing?
Among other topics, it goes into some of the history of how a natural part of life has been usurped by MDs who think they know better than human nature and how it is now essentially being sold as an illness that needs "fixing". Personally, I think $5k for a uneventful birth is a fleecing upon society.
Hate to break this to you, but we've given up many "natural" ways of doing things. Not all that long ago, births were attended to by amateur midwives, pain was managed with strange concoctions (mostly booze), and antibiotics not terribly common. Are you going to tell me that not a single dose of Advil (even post-partum) nor any antibiotics were employed during this entire event? And believe me, you want those "crazy modern" advances in sterile technology.
As someone who is working toward a full-time career in healthcare, I must tell you that this "human nature" you speak of is both wonderous and full of pitfalls.
I want to discuss some of the things you mentioned above. That noted, I'm not going to go on my experience (wanting to avoid the foolish thinking that "what's good/true for me must be the same for everyone else"), but actually go on the experiences of thousands of patients. In the modern age, we call this CLINICAL RESEARCH:
* Episiotomy: Not sure what to say about this, but it may help "girl" issues in the next topic.
* C-Section: Frequently called the most "unnatural" of birth techniques, it does offer a few advantages, including helping avert a situation where a high risk birth exposes a fetus to hypoxia (and brain damage) from extended periods in the birth canal. Another advantage that the "natural" crowd seemingly fails to note: there's a not-insignificant risk that vaginal birth may cause some PERMANENT degree of incontinence and substantial damage to enjoyable sex due to nerve-damage.
* Drugs: Again, administered right, this is a red herring and promotes a superb experience for everyone involved (especially the woman). For every person that MIGHT have had a bad experience with anesthesia, you're going to talk to 10-20 people that thad a very positive experience with it.
* Circumcision: I agree that this is probably something that can go. We probably do it more here in the US because we've got this chronic puritanism that discourages conversation about our naughty bits, something that's necessary to discuss CLEANLINESS issues pertaining to the PENIS. (There, I said it.)
Many OB/GYNs are outright LEAVING practice because malpractice insurance is becoming so expensive. Why? Because parents frequently WANT SOMEONE TO BLAME when something goes wrong. I have a bad feeling that this is the same mindset to causes people to strongly correlate autism with vaccinations, a notion that has specious--at best--evidence. In any event, just look at the number of doctors graduating from medical school wanting to be OBs. Hmm.
I'm a big fan of complementary and alternative medicine: my father practiced acupuncture and chiropractic. He had a solid track record of clinical outcomes (he frequently received referrals from MDs because of this), his prices were quite reasonable and he held himself to very high levels of ethical behavior.
He also, notably, knew when to call a spade a spade: he didn't turn his nose up at MDs and was an avid reader of many, many medical and surgical journals. It certainly didn't hurt that he fondly recounts his experiences at UCLA's Center for East-West Medicine. Seemed like they were quite successful at shelving the egotistical and frequently stupid acrimony that healthcare professonals (mainstream or alternative) engage in to focus on one thing: delivering cost-effective patient care that we can continuously improve on.
Fancy that for an idea.
Typical crap Roland summary. We've already got one in the Pacific NW:
http://www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/academic/som/radiationoncology/cyberknife-sw-washington-medical-center.cfm
Perhaps that's true for still, but the dynamic range of the Red One in the dark has apparently been comparable (or even slightly better than) film.
Film can do things digital can't, but most certainly, digital can do things film will simply never do, including in the arena of cost and camera handling. The Red One delivers an experience that rivals film at a fraction of the cost and a whole lot less weight!
There's no way a project I worked on earlier this year would ever have been possible if it wasn't for the Red One.
Indeed -- I also shot a small film project with the Red One. All things considered, it's a user-friendly package (as far as professional-level cameras are concerned) with superb performance and a virtually unbeatable price.
Ostensibly, as of last year, the only competitor to the Red One camera (package cost: around $50K) was an offering from Sony (cost: around $200K).
When Soderbergh said that this camera was going to "revolutionize independent film," he wasn't joking.
The attitude that users who do something wrong are idiots is a large part of why computers, operating systems and applications are generally pretty shit.
I enthusiastically agree. Over the last few years, I've had the "pleasure" of working with applications specific to healthcare and insurance industries. Overall, they're definitely shit.
I have to give Apple some credit here: activities requiring kernel access (or, for that matter, most anything that has a substantial potential for causing a security breach) are preceeded by a very friendly, clear message AND a requirement to enter a password before continuing.
The advantages here are clear:
1) The user actually gets honest-to-god informed about the effects of something they might agree to next and
2) Is slowed down (briefly) to ponder their action as they type in their password.
We can blame the user all we want, but anyone cognizant of human factors and ergonomic design knows that this is a paltry response...
Kudos to those at IBM who championed this response to ISO!